THE COLORED PASTORATE.
The employment of colored ministers in the traveling connection in the
Church, like Methodism itself, was a child of necessity. It has grown to
be a man, however, and is the father of several children.
Notwithstanding the secession of nearly all our white conferences and
Churches—500,000 members in the slaveholding States before mentioned—the
record is not written where the Methodist Episcopal Church extended
overtures to them to return that in any way involved the relinquishment
of its hold on the throat of slavery, or that equaled that offered by
our revered president, Abraham Lincoln, to the Southern Confederacy, if
they would return to the Union. The whole question of opposing slavery
by the Church seems to have been, all along, a work of conscience, not
to be repented of; that the work had to be done, because the seal of
God’s approval rested upon it. The action and firm stand taken by the
Church in 1844 put a quietus upon all who professed to believe the rules
relating to slavery would not be enforced during the ensuing
quadrennium.
The General Conference of 1852, that met in the city of Boston, was
called upon to consider the expediency of separate conferences for
colored members. The custom of the Church had usually been to leave all
colored congregations, in the appointments, “to be supplied.” But as the
work progressed and the colored membership found the braggadocio of
those “who went out from us” was invading the rank and file of their
work; that each year it increased with telling and disheartening effect,
and the more ambitious members among us were becoming restless and
wavering in their opinions, threatening with dissolution the work of the
colored members within the Church, the members within the bounds of the
Philadelphia and New Jersey Conferences—at any rate from members of our
Church in Pennsylvania and New Jersey—sent up, not only memorials to
this General Conference, but representative men of the more intelligent
class, to represent them and see, at the same time, the way the great
Methodist Episcopal Church would treat colored memorialists. When the
memorials were presented, asking again for separate conferences, they
were promptly referred to the Committee on Missions. After careful
examination of the memorials, they called before them the
representatives. “An open and free discussion of the interests at stake
and the benefits anticipated therefrom, was had.” The committee then
submitted to the General Conference the following:
“The Committee on Missions, to whom was referred the petition of our
colored brethren from Philadelphia, asking that the pastors within the
Philadelphia and New Jersey Annual Conferences may be formed into an
annual conference, under the supervision of the bishops and of the
presiding elders of said conference within whose bounds their (the
colored pastors’) work may lie, beg leave to report that the committee
have given due consideration to the petition, and have heard the bearers
of it in person, and have obtained all the information within their
reach, and have come to the following conclusions:
“1. That it is very desirable that the colored pastors mentioned
in the petition aforesaid should have an opportunity to meet
together once a year, in the presence, or under the supervision,
of the bishop or bishops, in order to confer together with
respect to the best means of promoting their work, and to
receive the assignment of their work from the bishops to the
Churches usually left in the Minutes ‘to be supplied.’
“2. That in this meeting it is desirable that the presiding
elders, in whose bounds the colored Churches and congregations
lie, should be present to assist the bishop in the assignment of
the work.
“3. _Provided_, upon due inquiry by the bishops, they shall find
a sufficient number of colored preachers of sufficient
qualifications to justify an annual meeting. Having arrived at
these conclusions, the committee have agreed on the following
resolution, which is reported for adoption by this General
Conference:
“_Resolved_, That we advise that the colored local preachers now
employed, or who may be employed, within the bounds of the
Philadelphia and New Jersey Annual Conferences, be assembled
together once in each year by the bishop or bishops, who may
preside in said conference, for the purpose of conferring with
the said colored local preachers with respect to the best means
for promoting their work, and also for the purpose of assigning
their work, respectively; and that the presiding elders within
whose bounds and under whose care the colored Churches and
congregations are, be present and aid the bishop or bishops in
said annual meeting of local preachers: _Provided_, that upon
due inquiry the said bishop or bishops shall find such annual
meeting aforesaid to be practicable and expedient.”
So far as we have gone, we have seen a disposition on the part of the
Church to give the colored man all the rights and benefits practicable
and wise that are accorded other members. It was not to have been
expected that he would demand what was not best for him as he saw it, or
that he should be given what he asked for when it was as impracticable
as unwise. There is no parent that is willing to allow a child to have
its _own way in everything_—_i.e._, if a wise parent. When at the
General Conference of 1848 the committee reported a separate conference
for the colored members within the Church “inexpedient,” what was
thought of it? Was it, under the then existing circumstances,
impracticable and inexpedient? It was most assuredly impracticable, in
that but few localities would allow slaves to have a meeting of their
own in the absence of some white person. The Lord Jesus said: “I came
not to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law.” He verified this by
paying taxes, and observing (and having others do the same) the Jewish
law. Suppose the Church, at that time, had given them a separate
conference for Maryland and Delaware, could they have enjoyed the
benefits of it? Most assuredly not. On the other hand, it would have
undoubtedly weakened the influence of the Church with the masters, and
subjected the colored members to restrictions of privileges, and brought
upon them uncalled-for hardships.
The tasks imposed upon the poor Hebrews in Egypt were increased, as well
as the inflictions of punishment, as soon as they began to believe in
Moses’ plan of a “three days’ journey into the wilderness to worship
God.” When a desire for a separate conference came from those who could
enjoy it without let, it was at once arranged for them. I believe the
more intelligent colored men listened to the words of advice and wisdom
of the General Conference with confidence. And yet it must be declared
that many of the influential colored members of our Church were urged up
to the belief that it was refused them from mere jealousy on the part of
‘the white folks,’ because they did not want the colored man elevated;
because they wished to boss him in Church matters as his master did in
every-day affairs.
Very many advantages were offered the African Churches by the failure of
our Church to grant the requests made by our members for separate annual
conferences. Whether they took advantage of them or not, a great many
people in these United States believe they did. Every time the General
Conference was asked to grant separate conferences, and it did not do so
because of its impracticability, it was not strange that they were
vexed, hearing everywhere, “I told you _colored folks_ so.” As a result
of such failure we lost, from 1844 until we were granted separate
conferences, not less than one-fourth of the membership of the African
Churches in this country at that time. As strange as it may seem, it is
really true. But probably the Church was not to be blamed altogether for
not doing for the colored members that which would have inevitably
worked hardships for them in the slaveholding States. But why did not
the Church at once form separate conferences for our people in those
States where the African and African Zion Churches were then operating?
As we turn these questions over in our minds, several valid reasons
occur to us. Either because the Church loved the colored man, and wanted
him to have his own choice when allowed to enjoy it—whether for separate
congregations, conferences, or Churches—even though they all declared a
desire to unite with one of the two colored organizations, or both of
them, already in existence, and thus become a religious power in those
States where it was practicable, in the which they could still aid them;
or because the Church thought the world would declare—had they organized
another colored Church—that they were following with opposition and
spite those two bodies, by setting up a “colored Church” within a white
one to break those two down; or the Church did not want to move in the
matter until somewhat of the outcome of the Negro question could be seen
or known; or else, because they really thought it the duty of the
Methodist Episcopal Church to look after those colored members in the
slave States where “the colored organizations” could not go, and abandon
all other colored members as material for the upbuilding of their work.
The latter, I believe, is nearer the truth. And by this is not meant
that they refused to allow colored members to join the Church, or to
commune with it in the “free States,” but that _no special pains were
put forth to induce them to join the Methodist Episcopal Church where
either of those bodies had charge_. This is one of the advantages they
have enjoyed over the colored members remaining in the Methodist
Episcopal Church. Again, may it not be surmised that since ours is “the
Prince of peace,” and rivalry in ecclesiastical, as other matters,
usually is followed by strife, that the refusal of the Church to grant
separate conferences to the colored members in those States was but an
effort to avoid strife? Again, for the Church to have granted separate
conferences, as a stay against the secession spirit manifested in 1816
and 1823, would have been considered by a great many good people—and
used to advantage by the seceders—as a declaration of the charges made
by the African Churches that “the whites were anxious to get rid of the
colored element within the Church.” From whatever point we take
cognizance of that matter, it would appear as if the Church tried to do
what was for the best. Every conceivable thing was done to pacify and
keep the colored members within the Church. The secession of the
Wesleyans had a great deal to do with the complication of this matter,
for they were, in many instances, naturally the main stay for African
Methodism.
THE FIRST COLORED BISHOP IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
The interest the Methodist Episcopal Church had in the colored man was
not confined to America.
“The old Church sought her sheep,
The parent sought her child;
She followed him o’er vale and hill,
O’er deserts waste and wild;
She found him nigh to death,
Famished, and faint, and lone;
She bound him with the bands of love.
She saved the wandering one.”
The first foreign mission-field of the Methodist Episcopal Church was
Africa. When the “freed people” of these United States began to move to
the west coast of that country, the Church began to follow them by
sending over missionaries to look after her colored members and others
who would accept the service. From time to time the membership
multiplied, and in 1833 a mission was organized and then an annual
conference. This missionary field may have been the outgrowth of the
seeds sown by Dr. Coke, who in 1814, on his voyage to India, left a
missionary at the Cape of Good Hope. The work continued to increase
until it was declared by some the leaven that was to leaven Africa. In
1834, in company with Rev. John Seys, was sent Rev. Francis Burns from
New York, he having been ordained deacon and elder by that man of God,
Bishop Janes. In 1849 he was appointed presiding elder of the Cape
Palmas District of the Liberia Annual Conference. When the General
Conference of 1856 convened in the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, a new
phase of the colored membership question came up. Africa was knocking at
the door of the conference, asking for a missionary bishop. The General
Conference at once took up the cry, examined the matter, and requested
the Liberia Annual Conference to select the man. This was done by the
selecting of Rev. Francis Burns. He at once prepared to return to
America for ordination.
Why did the Methodist Episcopal Church not send a bishop by the West
Coast of Africa and have him ordained there? Why bring him back to
America, where the colored man was only recognized as a chattel, a
bondman, a serf? And yet, to her praise be it said, she did for the
colored man in America what _no other denomination_ found it convenient
to do—ordained a colored man to the episcopacy. When Rev. Francis Burns
arrived he was given all the honor any man could have expected. He was
accordingly ordained at the session of the Genesee Conference, October
14, 1858, the services being conducted by Bishops Janes and Baker. But
after all this, what did the Church really think and say concerning this
colored man at that time? The assembly that witnessed his ordination,
and those who grasped his ebony hand and bid him God-speed, declare in
the words of Dr. Robie, who was present: “Though of ebony complexion, he
had gained wonderfully on the affection and respect of all who had made
his acquaintance, and especially those privileged to an intimate
association with him. His manner is exceedingly pleasant, and his spirit
kind, sweet, and good as ever beamed from human heart or disposition. He
seems to be lacking in none of the qualifications of the gentleman and
Christian minister. He possesses also an intelligent and cultivated
mind, speaks readily and fluently, and even eloquently, and is in all
respects a model African. Such is the man whom the Liberia Conference
has selected for a bishop, and such the one the highest authorities of
our American Church have set apart for the sacred and responsible
position.” We add, Thus shall it be done to _the colored man_ whom the
Methodist Episcopal Church delights to honor on slave soil, where
prejudice against the race grew as rank as wild weeds.
The election and ordination of Bishop Burns was not a subterfuge, for
the Church elected another colored man to the episcopacy—Rev. John W.
Roberts, in 1866—one year after the war closed. He was consecrated in
St. Paul’s Methodist Episcopal Church, in New York City, June 20th of
that year.
With the interests of the race at heart, what more could she have done?
But the advance steps already taken by the Church on that question were
twisted by those who opposed the Church in her efforts to do God’s will
toward the downtrodden race, into every shape but the proper one. The
cry still went up from at least two sources that the Church was not
willing to recognize the colored ministry and members within her
borders. The colored members within the Church where such attacks were
made still felt that a further step _must_ be taken by the Church to
save the colored membership. So there came up to that General Conference
from the colored members within the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New
Jersey Conferences one or more memorials, all of which were referred to
a special committee, which reported as follows:
“The committee to whom were referred the memorials of colored members
within the bounds of the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New Jersey
Conferences, after due consideration, report the following for the
adoption of the conference, and recommend that it be inserted in the
Discipline as a distinct chapter, entitled,
“CHAPTER VIII. OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF OUR COLORED
MEMBERS.
“1. Our colored preachers and official members shall have all
the privileges which are usual to others in quarterly
conferences, where the usages of the country do not forbid it.
And the presiding elder may hold for them a separate quarterly
conference when in his judgment it shall be expedient.
“2. The bishop or presiding elder may employ colored preachers
to travel and preach, when their services are judged necessary:
_Provided_, that no one shall be so employed without having been
recommended by a quarterly conference.
“3. The bishops may call a conference once in each year of our
colored local preachers, within the bounds of any one or more of
our districts, for the purpose of conferring with them with
respect to the wants of the work among our colored people, and
the best means to be employed in promoting its prosperity; at
which conference the presiding elder within whose district, and
under whose care the colored charges and congregations are,
shall be present: _Provided_, that the holding of said
conference or conferences shall be recommended by an annual
conference, and the bishops, upon due inquiry, shall deem it
practicable and expedient.”
Again, by this action, the Church recognized the colored members within
her communion as being _eligible to all privileges_ usual to other
members, showing at once that her heart was all right.
THE FIRST EDUCATIONAL EFFORT.
By this is not meant that no interest in the education of the race had
been manifested prior to this. The education of Bishop Burns, alone,
would refute such an idea. But the Church began to see and feel that
something on a larger scale ought to be done for the higher education of
the colored youth within the Church. The very idea points out the fact
that the Church saw for her colored members a better day coming. At the
General Conference above mentioned, _Wilberforce University_, now in the
hands of our brethren of the African Church, at Xenia, Ohio, was
purchased by a number of individuals, and was under the patronage of the
Cincinnati Conference of our Church, and was “devoted to the higher
education of colored youth.” Rev. J. F. Wright, D.D., its efficient
agent, presented its claims to the General Conference. He traveled in
its interest, and it continued to flourish. Rev. R. S. Rust, D.D.,
became president of this institution in 1859. Our brethren of the
African Church began to feel the need of a better educated ministry, and
having no outlook for such an institution turned their attention toward
this institution. Bishop D. A. Payne, having formed the acquaintance of
President Rust, began negotiations for the transfer of that property to
the African Methodist Episcopal Church; and, in 1863, it accordingly
“passed into their hands for _a nominal sum_.” Thus the beginning of the
educational work in the African Methodist Episcopal Church was but the
outgrowth of the generosity of the Methodist Episcopal Church toward the
colored race, whether within or without the Church. It is true that but
little, if any, credit is ever given to the Church that was represented
in the matter by our own Dr. R. S. Rust. They sometimes—and Bishop Payne
all the time—mention gratefully his name, but no public acknowledgment
by that Church has yet been made to us for the advantages given them in
this transaction; and hence many a student, who has attended there, has
gone away ignorant of these facts. That transaction is but another proof
of the fact that but little, if any, opposition or rivalry has ever been
allowed from our Church toward their Church.
[Illustration:
NEW ORLEANS UNIVERSITY—MAIN BUILDING.
]
It did seem that, ecclesiastically as well as politically, “Providence
had wisely mingled their cup.” When one phase of the question touching
slavery had been met, another phase developed. If ecclesiasticism met
this “sum of all villainies” in its way, and struck it down, leaving it
wounded, bleeding, and dying, it would, phœnix-like, the next day appear
in the political field. Like “Banquo’s ghost,” it would not down at the
bidding. The General Conference of 1856 had hardly adjourned before the
political world was startled by the case of a colored man—Dred
Scott—which was brought before the courts for decision. The appeal was
brought up to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the
court, declared in this case that “Negroes, whether free or slaves, are
not citizens of the United States, and they can not become such by any
process known to the Constitution.” This decision caused a ripple, not
only on the sea of politics, but over the placid stream of Methodism;
for it must not appear or be considered egotism when it is said nothing
relating to the interests of the colored man has transpired in this
country in which Methodism did not take part. And yet, as strange as it
may appear, the Church has always objected to mixing politics with
religion; but believing the converse admissible, our Church papers began
to wage war in favor of this colored man, as if he had been a member of
the Methodist Episcopal Church.
This excitement had not subsided when Abraham Lincoln, as the nominee of
the Republican party, was elected President of the United States. The
relation our Church sustained to that conflict will be better understood
when it is remembered that Torrey and Lovejoy, the two martyrs to the
Abolition cause, were New England ministers; that the New England
Methodists very early identified themselves with this cause, and poured
hot shot into the foul slave oligarchy. As early as June 4, 1835, the
New England Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church had organized
an anti-slavery society—not simply a non-partisan, namby-pamby sort of a
stay-at-home-and-pray society, but active, vigilant, and progressive—on
the basis of the immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery. North
Bennett Street Methodist Episcopal Church, in Boston, was opened in that
year for Rev. George Thompson to preach a sermon against slavery.
William Lloyd Garrison spoke of that meeting as follows:
“In these days of slavish servility and malignant prejudices, we
are presented occasionally with some beautiful specimens of
Christian obedience and courage. One of these is seen in the
opening of the North Bennett Street Methodist Episcopal
meeting-house in Boston to the advocates for the honor of God,
the salvation of our country, and the freedom of enslaved
millions in our midst. As the pen of the historian, in after
years, shall trace the rise, progress, and glorious triumph of
the Abolition cause, he will delight to record, and posterity
will delight to read, that when all other pulpits were dumb, all
other churches closed on the subject of slavery in Boston, the
boasted ‘cradle of liberty,’ there was one pulpit that would
speak out, one Church that would throw open its doors in behalf
of the downtrodden victims of American tyranny, and that was the
pulpit and Church above alluded to. The primitive spirit of
Methodism is beginning to revive with all its holy zeal and
courage, and it will not falter until all the Methodist Churches
are purged from the pollution of slavery, and the last slave in
the land stands forth a redeemed and regenerated being.”
Notwithstanding the above, such Methodist ministers as Rev. Gilbert
Haven and others kept the ball rolling. It is said of one of our
bishops: “Throughout the late contest Bishop Simpson did much to
strengthen the hands of President Lincoln, and to nerve the spirit of
the nation to endure any sacrifice for the cause of the Union.” Is it
any wonder, then, that the Church, in one way or the other, was
connected with nearly every effort for the emancipation of the slaves?
Therefore the eighteenth session of the General Conference that convened
in the city of Buffalo, May, 1860, was anticipated with much anxiety.
The great debate on the question of slavery at the last General
Conference had, during this entire quadrennium, proven sufficient to
keep up the agitation all along the line. Dr. Abel Stevens, then editor
of the _Christian Advocate_, addressed an “Appeal” to the general Church
“concerning what the next General Conference should do on the question
of slavery.” This appeal aimed simply to have the next General
Conference declare “the sense of the Church on the whole subject,” with
“a note, put in the margin of the General Rule,” that declared “the only
cases of slaveholding admissible to our communion are such as are
consistent with the Golden Rule.” Drs. Nathan Bangs and J. H. Perry, at
the head of a “Ministers’ and Laymen’s Union,” formed within the New
York Conference in 1859, and the Anti-slavery Society, with Dr. Curry
leading, hurled their anathemas against Dr. Stevens’s proposition.
Resolutions favoring a new rule on slavery, prior to the General
Conference of 1860, were voted upon as follows: Cincinnati, 319 votes
for, 1,212 votes against it; Providence, 1,242 for, and 1,329 votes
against it; Erie, 1,795 for, and 1,416 votes against it. It was conceded
that the cause of human liberty would receive a fresh impetus from the
ringing speeches that would be delivered, and from the solid resolutions
that would be passed at that General Conference. Accordingly two classes
of petitions were presented: “Those asking for the extirpation of
slavery from the Church,” and “those asking that no change be made in
the Discipline on the subject of slavery.” A special committee was
ordered to receive resolutions of this kind. There was also appointed “a
Committee on our Colored Membership.” Several memorials and petitions
from our colored membership were presented. After due consideration,
notwithstanding the excitement on account of the agitation of the
question of slavery, that committee reported as follows:
“The Committee on Colored Membership, to which were referred
certain memorials from colored local preachers, respectfully
represent: That having examined said memorials, they find that
they request this body, (1) To extend the bounds of the
conference of colored local preachers, called in accordance with
the provisions introduced into the Discipline at the last
General Conference; (2) To grant them the power to try and expel
their own members; (3) To confer upon the conference of colored
local preachers power to elect to deacons’ and elders’ orders;
(4) To invest said conference with all the powers of a regular
annual conference; (5) To admit colored preachers to membership
in our annual conferences. Your committee find that the first
two objects prayed for are, in substance, covered by provisions
already existing in the Discipline, which appear to have been
overlooked by the petitioners. In regard to items three and
four, referred to above, your committee find that the prayer of
the memorialists could not be granted without doing violence to
our usages and Disciplinary regulations. The fifth item embraced
in the memorials before us was withdrawn by the representative
of the petitioners, who appeared in person before the committee.
In view of the whole of the foregoing, your committee recommend
that the whole subject be dismissed. All of which is
respectfully submitted.
“S. Y. MONROE, Chairman.”
When the Committee on Slavery reported, there were submitted a
“majority” and a “minority” report, a substitute for the majority
report. The first resolution of the committee was:
“_Resolved_, by the delegates of the several annual conferences,
in General Conference assembled, That we recommend the amendment
of the General Rule on Slavery, so that it shall read: ‘The
buying, selling, or holding of men, women, or children, with an
intention to enslave them.’”
This motion was lost, since it required a two-thirds vote; and 138 voted
for it, and 74 against it. The second resolution was:
“_Resolved_, That we recommend the suspension of the fourth
Restrictive Rule, for the purpose set forth in the foregoing
resolution.”
The first resolution having failed, this was laid on the table. The
third was:
“_Resolved_, by the delegates of the several annual conferences,
in General Conference assembled, That the following be, and
hereby is, substituted in the place of the seventh chapter on
Slavery: _Question._ What shall be done for the extirpation of
slavery? _Answer._ We declare that we are as much as ever
convinced of the great evil of slavery. We believe that the
buying, selling, or holding of human beings as chattels, is
contrary to the laws of God and nature, inconsistent with the
Golden Rule, and with that rule in our Discipline which requires
all who desire to remain among us to ‘do no harm, and to avoid
evil of every kind.’ We therefore affectionately admonish all
our preachers and people to keep themselves pure from this great
evil, and to seek its extirpation by all lawful and Christian
means.”
This was necessarily the last work of the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church on behalf of the colored man before the
terrible Civil War in this country, that began during the ensuing
quadrennium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------